Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: [HACKERS] Trouble in paradise: cancel via postmaster ain't so cool

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: "Henry B(dot) Hotz" <hotz(at)jpl(dot)nasa(dot)gov>
Cc: hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Trouble in paradise: cancel via postmaster ain't so cool
Date: 1998-07-08 13:56:17
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-hackers
"Henry B. Hotz" <hotz(at)jpl(dot)nasa(dot)gov> writes:
> Idea A:  precompute everything you need to do a cancel as part of sending
> the request in the first place so #1 above takes minimum effort (i.e. no
> malloc(), no gethostbyname(), no nothing).

Yeah, that's what I planned to try.  It'll mean making the PGconn
structure a little bigger to hold the info, but that seems OK.

> Idea B:  spawn (vfork()/exec()) a cancel process so all the funny stuff
> happens in a different address space.

Hadn't thought of that one... it'd have to be a real fork not a vfork,
consequently could be pretty expensive for a large application.
Still it might be a better answer than living with a nonreentrant

After sleeping on it, I feel like it should be possible to solve the
problem along the lines Henry mentions: have connectDB save everything
that it needs to get from C library routines, so that only kernel calls
are needed to open a new postmaster connection in PQrequestCancel.
Will work on that.

			regards, tom lane

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: David HartwigDate: 1998-07-08 16:01:01
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Access & Postgres
Previous:From: Sferacarta SoftwareDate: 1998-07-08 13:35:06
Subject: Re[2]: [GENERAL] COALESCE() or NVL()

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2018 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group